A non-partisan political blog for people who care about Israel and want an end to the Arab-Muslim war against the Jews in the Middle East. Michael Lumish, PhD, editor. - mike.lumish@gmail.com - Doodad, Oldschooltwentysix, JayinPhiladelphia, Empress Trudy, Geoffff, and Sar Shalom Contributors.

Saturday, December 24, 2011

Still More Dr. Rubin Discussing Obama's Capitulation to Radical Islam

'Not all Islamists are alike. Turkey and Iran are both governed by parties with religious roots, but their models and behavior are radically different. There are plenty of political parties with religious affiliations—Hindu, Christian, Jewish, Muslim—that respect the rules of democratic politics. The suggestion that faithful Muslims cannot thrive in a democracy is insulting, dangerous, and wrong. They do it in this country every day.'

Let’s review

–True, Not all Muslims are alike but all Islamists are alike.

–By the same token, not all Russians are alike but all Communists under Lenin and Stalin were alike.

-And, not all Germans were alike but all Nazis were alike.

–Not all organizations composed of Caucasians are alike but all members of the Ku Klux Klan are alike.

–The fact that European Christian Democratic and Israeli religious parties respect the rules of democratic politics has no connection with whether the Muslim Brotherhood will do so.

Is that clear?

What’s striking about the administration’s position is the lack of the most basic logic. True, a political party with religious affiliations might “respect the rules of democratic politics.” But that doesn’t mean parties favoring a Sharia state in which, say, Muslims who convert to another religion are sentenced to death, fall into that category. There is no proof that Islamist parties “respect the rules of democratic politics” except their willingness to run in elections. The Nazis and Communists also ran in elections. So what?

And what is a moderate Muslim? He might be a conservative traditionalist; liberal reformer; Kurdish or Berber nationalist; tribal loyalist; etc. But that doesn’t apply to an Islamist, someone who wants to fundamentally transform the existing society into one governed by Sharia law under a hardline interpretation, wiping of Israel off the map, subordinating Christians and women; and driving Western influence out of the region.

Winning an election and forming a government is only the first step. What does that government do? It passes laws that enforce an Islamist conception of society; puts its people into the bureaucracy, rewards imams who are radical and fires those who are moderate; rewrites textbooks and what appears on the media, chooses judges and the commanders of the armed forces; and sponsors terrorism against other states.

It would be something else completely for the U.S. government to say: We will accept the Muslim Brotherhood in government if it takes power in an election, but we will do everything possible to stop that from happening. That would be a proper U.S. interests’ policy.

Clinton did set some conditions but in no way hinted that any Islamist party might violate them:

'Parties committed to democracy must reject violence; they must abide by the rule of law and respect the freedoms of speech, religion, association, and assembly; they must respect the rights of women and minorities; they must let go of power if defeated at the polls; and in a region with deep divisions within and between religions, they cannot be the spark that starts a conflagration. In other words, what parties call themselves is less important to us than what they actually do.'

Where to begin?

–The Islamists do not reject violence. The Muslim Brotherhood supports terrorism against Israel, Americans, and Iraqi Shia. It will soon be backing violence, at least covertly, against Christians, secularists, and others. That is their doctrine.

–Abide by the rule of law. Well, they will democratically change the law into a repressive dictatorship. The Communists and fascist regimes also had laws that they enforced

–Freedom of speech. No speech that criticizes Islam, their interpretation of Islam, or themselves, as we already see in Turkey where a former general was just sentenced to prison on the charge of having criticized the judgment in conversation with a villager.

–Freedom of religion. No building or repair of churches, no equality of treatment for Christians. In Turkey a great historic church is now being converted into a mosque.

–Association and assembly. Even now, look what happens if Christians try to demonstrate in Cairo.

–Respect the rights of women and minorities. Laws will be changed to take away women’s rights because Sharia will govern.

–And what will the U.S. government do if these democratic practices don’t happen? Might it ot be too late?"

.
.
.

I find this all very unusual. On the one hand we have an organization, The Muslim Brotherhood, the granddaddy of the Radical Jihad, virtually taking over the country of Egypt, which is, of course, one of the most important countries in the Middle East. The Brotherhood has an ideological provenance that goes to the Koran, but also to Nazi Germany. Hamas is the Muslim Brotherhood in Gaza. It is thus a genocidal organization.

On the other hand we have an administration that is complicit in the rise of the Jihad in the Middle East. It should be clear by this point to all that the current US administration has no real concern about preventing a Sharia take over throughout the entire area. The Muslim Middle East is rank with homophobia, gender apartheid, and genocidal Jew hatred and the US Secretary of State believes that standing against this kind of malice is insulting toward Muslims.

And, finally, on the third hand we have a political movement in the US out of which the president came, i.e., the progressive movement, that has not the strength of stomach to even discuss the fact that it is implicitly supporting a movement that stands in direct opposition to everything that it allegedly stands for. The progressive movement tells the world that it supports Gay rights, yet this movement has abandoned Gay people in the Middle East entirely.

The progressive movement tells the world that it supports women's rights, yet this movement has abandoned women in the Middle East entirely.

The progressive movement also tells the world that it is anti-racist, yet it constantly displays a condescension toward people of color, particularly Arabs, and tends to blame Jews for the attacks against us.

What is most galling, however, is that the progressive movement, as a rule, is so painfully politically correct that they cannot even bring themselves to honestly discuss what is the single most significant foreign policy development since the end of the Cold War. The fact that the Jihad is taking over country after country in the Middle East is treated as irrelevant. Part of the reason for this, of course, is that the Obama administration has sent a signal that they are OK with these developments, despite the genocidal nature of the Jihad.

And, of course, merely to even the raise the issue, as I am doing here, marks one as a "racist" or an "Islamophobe" or a hard-line right-wing warmonger. In other words, if an imam screams for the blood of Jews in a mosque and I say, "Hey, that imam is calling for the murder of Jews" it makes me the bad guy in the self-righteous, morally vacuous world of the progressive-left.

7 comments:

I like this post a lot. It presents a strong answer to the one-sided view held by the anti-Israel crowd.

I don't think progressives are as unified in opposition. Many just see the conflict and blame both sides equally, or Israel because it holds power, but these views are from the inundation of one narrative that makes Israel and even Jews evil.

Some will always have the hatred, however. These are the ones that claim to stand for human rights, yet watch in virtual silence at the greatest abuses. I am not ready to write off the rest because there are some that scream the loudest and coerce others into silence.

Many times I have talked about the OIC. It is the international voice of a movement to give Sharia special status in non-Islamic states, so that it cannot be criticized, thus allowing for a more imperialistic posture to be adopted in changing Western societies from within. When people, including fair minded progressives fully wake up to this, the tide will start to turn, but it will be a long and hard struggle.

The loudmouths will never see how disconnected their views of themselves is from the reality on the ground. Tehy will be most surprised when the Islamists come calling for them.

Barack Obama on the so-called "Arab Spring" (May 19, 2011):

"There are times in the course of history when the actions of ordinary citizens spark movements for change because they speak to a longing for freedom that has been building up for years. In America, think of the defiance of those patriots in Boston who refused to pay taxes to a King, or the dignity of Rosa Parks as she sat courageously in her seat."

The "Arab Spring" was the brutal rise of political Islam in the Middle East and this is what Obama compares the Civil Rights Movement to?

The Fundamental Argument:

The progressive movement, and the activist base of the Democratic Party, creates and supports venues that demonize and defame the Jewish state, thereby also creating hatred toward the Jewish people.

Such venues include political journals, such as, but not limited to, Daily Kos, the Huffington Post, and the UK Guardian, numerous universities throughout the United States and Europe, various NGOs with an anti-Israel agenda, and the entire progressive-left movement to boycott, divest from, and sanction (BDS) the Jewish people of the state of Israel.

These venues and organizations do not generally criticize Israel, but dehumanize that country.

For this reason, among others, the progressive movement, and the activist base of the Democratic Party, undermines the well-being and safety of Jews around the world, sometimes resulting in violence toward us.

Therefore, as a matter of common sense and basic human decency, Jews should leave the progressive movement and the Democratic Party as we seek to build alternative political structures that are not home to toxic anti-Semitic anti-Zionists, who would see us robbed of self-determination and self-defense.

What You Can't Discuss:

This is a partial list of taboo topics within progressive-left venues around the Arab-Israel conflict. You cannot discuss this material because it undermines the "Palestinian narrative" of perpetual victimhood. This narrative is a club used by the Arab and Muslim enemies of Israel, along with their western progressive allies, to delegitimize that country in preparation for its eventual dissolution.

1) The centuries of Jewish dhimmitude under the boot of Islamic imperialism.

2) The recent construction of Palestinian identity, its connection to Soviet Cold War politics, and how this is an Arab people with a Roman name that refers to Greeks.

3) Arab and Palestinian Koranically-based racism as the fundamental source of the conflict.

4) The ways in which contemporary progressive anti-Zionism serves as a cloak for gross anti-Semitism.

5) The Palestinian theft and appropriation of Jewish history.

6) "Pallywood."

7) The historical connections between the Nazis, the Muslim Brotherhood, and the Palestinian national movement.

8) The perpetual refusal of the Palestinian-Arabs to accept a state for themselves in peace next to the Jewish one.

9) The progressive portrayal of terrorists as those fighting a righteous war of "resistance."

10) The Arab-Palestinian indoctrination of children with Jew hatred.

11) Human rights violations against women, children, and Gay people in the Muslim Middle East.

12) The fact that violent Jihadis call themselves "Jihadis" and claim to love death above life.

This is only a partial list, so please let us know the many more that we are missing.